Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

Transcription

1 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA (213) (213) Fax

2

3 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders November 2003 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA (213) (213) Fax Copyright 2003, Asian Pacific American Legal Center

4

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report would not have been possible without the help of many in the field who provided their expertise, information, and time. In particular, the author wishes to thank staff and executive directors from all the programs interviewed, especially those from the programs highlighted in this report: Jayne Park and Deepa Iyer of Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center; Robert Sable and Zenobia Lai of Greater Boston Legal Services; Joann Lee of Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles; and Karen Hoy of Legal Language Access Project. The author especially recognizes the staff of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center Aileen Almeria Louie, Rebecca Shea, Juliet Stone, Karin Wang, and Kimiko Kelly for their help in guiding and drafting parts of this report. APALC would like to acknowledge the Open Society Institute, Community Technology Foundation of California, The California Endowment, California Consumer Protection Foundation, and the Verizon Foundation for their support of its Asian Language Legal Intake Project (ALLIP). ABOUT THE AUTHOR For the past eight years, Gabrielle Hammond has been a manager in legal services and has acted as a consultant for the poverty law community. As a manager in legal services programs, Ms. Hammond was one of the leaders in the country to design and implement centralized intake and hotline systems, access to justice programs, self-help centers, and courthouse initiatives to simplify court forms and processes in Hawaii. In 2001, Ms. Hammond was the start-up program manager for APALC s Asian Language Legal Intake Project. Ms. Hammond has also specialized in immigrant rights program development and limited English proficiency issues in her capacity as the deputy director for the National Immigration Law Center. Currently, she acts as an independent consultant for key programs focusing on LEP issues and/or management development for the poverty law community. Additionally, she is the current project director for the National Technology Assistance Project (NTAP), a multi-program project of the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Lone Star Legal Aid, and Legal Aid Society of East Tennessee. NTAP provides technology support, training, and leadership to the poverty law community nationally, and strives to develop working strategies and human networks to make appropriate technology solutions viable for the low-income client community. Report layout and design: Jeep Hauser.

6

7 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements About the Author Purpose of Report Methodology Section I: Rapid Growth of API Communities Section II: Bridging Cultural Divides Challenges in Serving API Communities Section III: A Report on Findings Successful Approaches from Forerunners Section IV: Ongoing Challenges in Serving API Clients Section V: Asian Legal Language Intake Project (ALLIP) Section VI: Profiles of Other Model Programs Section VII: Conclusion Appendix A: Background on Asian Pacific American Legal Center Appendix B: Programs and Contact Information Appendix C: Programs and Contact Information (Profiled Programs Only) Appendix D: ALLIP Sample Scripts, Questionnaires, Case Acceptance Criteria Appendix E: The Potential and Pitfalls of Technology and API Clients

8

9 PURPOSE OF REPORT The cultural and linguistic diversity of Asian and Pacific Islander (API) communities presents a tremendous challenge to legal service providers that are tasked with serving this population. While the challenges are great, the consequences of failing to effectively serve API clients can be dire. According to Census 2000, 13% of all APIs live in poverty, and certain API subgroups have poverty rates over 50%. Like many other low-income persons, poor APIs are prone to being exploited and failing to assert their rights. Programs unable to provide services to API communities are at great risk of further disenfranchising and ignoring thousands of potential legal services clients. Additionally, programs unable to respond to the demographic changes now occurring are at risk of serving only a narrow population segment and not responding to the needs of clients they were created to serve. By overcoming the challenges inherent in serving these populations, legal services programs will not only be better positioned to help one of the nation s fastest growing racial/ethnic populations, but will also be able to act as an ambassador for these communities to other services and systems that can help lift these communities from poverty. Additionally, by creating systems that better serve API communities, legal services programs will be able to serve other non-english speaking immigrants, who face challenges similar to API clients and whose numbers are also growing steadily. Across legal service agencies nationally, few programs serve API populations comprehensively. As such, no evaluated models exist which have been shown to fully address the complexities and challenges of effectively meeting the API communities legal needs. In recent years, however, a handful of forerunners have been developing or refining delivery systems that, while still in early stages of design and informal evaluation, offer useful guidance on building and maintaining a successful program. API communities. While there are many other legal service models being developed by local bar associations, student groups, API legal organizations, and others, this report focuses on collaborations between API and mainstream legal services organizations as a means of maximizing limited resources and expertise. The purpose of this report is to provide information for the leadership of both legal services and API community organizations, to help design and/or strengthen systems and approaches that make legal services accessible to API and other limited English speaking clients. However, the report should also provide useful information to anyone seeking to improve the delivery of legal services to API communities. After reviewing the distinct issues that can impede an agency s ability to meet the legal needs of API clients, this report outlines key themes and factors common to successful programs and efforts. Additionally, this report provides details on five model programs, with special emphasis on APALC s Asian Language Legal Intake Project, to showcase working examples and lessons learned. 1 These programs include: Asian Language Legal Intake Project, APALC, Los Angeles, CA Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center, Washington, D.C. Greater Boston Legal Services, Boston, MA Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles API Unit, Los Angeles, CA Legal Language Access Project, Oakland, CA This report neither recommends a specific delivery system, nor draws comparisons among existing approaches, since all of these efforts are relatively new and all reflect to a large extent the needs and resources of their specific urban community. As demonstrated by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center s Asian Language Legal Intake Project (ALLIP), a strong partnership between mainstream legal service organizations and an API community-based organization is often at the core of these efforts. Similar partnerships are being formed in different parts of the country (initiated either by a legal services organization or by local API community-based organizations) to develop projects that provide legal assistance to disenfranchised 1 Note that while five programs are showcased, themes and lessons learned were derived from interviews with 14 programs. (See Appendix B: Programs Interviewed). Many of these 14 programs either are involved with API-specific efforts or, more commonly, developed approaches to handling limited English proficient clients within general legal services. Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

10 METHODOLOGY Identifying Programs Three individuals from two of the nation s most established programs serving APIs were consulted on programs that provide model services to API communities. A list of potential programs to interview was collected. The author also queried two lists that target legal services: one that solely discusses language access and limited English proficiency (LEP) issues and another that reaches project managers and directors in legal services. A description of the report was sent out on these lists inviting recipients to respond in writing to the questions posed or to indicate their interest for follow-up. Through this process, additional programs and individuals were identified and interviewed, who either offer services to LEP clients generally (both API and non-api) or who have created systems for delivering legal services specifically to API communities. Interviewing Programs Initial interviews were limited to a simple assessment of the following: a description of the project, the population served; length of time in operation; sources of funding; and strengths and weaknesses in addressing the target client base. Based on these short interviews, programs were selected for in-depth interviews and/or participation in an edit exchange to accurately describe their project and to report on themes or challenges identified in implementing services for API clients. 10 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders 2003

11 SECTION I: RAPID GROWTH OF API COMMUNITIES According to the U.S. Census 2000, the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) population in the United States represents more than 45 ethnic groups and 28 distinct languages (not including dialects). APIs are defined as persons who have origins in any of the original peoples of countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Micronesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The API population as a category has increased rapidly in the last 30 years. According to U.S. Census figures, the Asian and Pacific Islander population doubled from 1.5 million in 1970 to 3.7 million in 1980, and again to 7.3 million in Surpassing the 10 million mark in 2000, APIs continue to be one of the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups. Table 1: Growth of API and Other Racial and Ethnic Groups in the U.S. from 1990 to 2000 (Source: U.S. Census) 2 Racial & 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number %Total Number %Total Number %Total White, Non-Hispanic 188,128,296 76% 194,552,774 69% 198,177,900 70% African American 29,986,060 12% 34,658,190 12% 36,419,434 13% Latino / Hispanic 22,354,059 9% 33,081,736 12% 35,305,818 13% Asian 6,908,638 3% 10,242,998 4% 11,898,828 4% American Indian 1,959,234 1% 2,475,956 1% 4,119,301 1% Pacific Islander 365, % 398, % 874, % Total 248,709, % 281,421, % 281,421, % Table 2: Growth in Asian and Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups in the U.S. from 1990 to 2000 (Source: U.S. Census) Asian 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number % Asian Number % Asian Number % Asian Chinese 1,648,696 23% 2,432,585 24% 2,879,636 24% -Chinese, except Taiwanese 1,574,918 23% 2,314,537 23% 2,734,841 23% -Taiwanese 73,778 1% 118,048 1% 144,795 1% Filipino 1,406,770 19% 1,850,314 18% 2,364,815 20% Asian Indian 815,447 11% 1,678,765 17% 1,899,599 16% Korean 798,849 11% 1,076,872 11% 1,228,427 10% Vietnamese 614,547 8% 1,122,528 11% 1,223,736 10% Japanese 847,562 12% 796,700 8% 1,148,932 10% Cambodian 147,411 2% 171,937 2% 206,052 2% Pakistani 81,371 1% 153,533 2% 204,309 2% Laotian 149,014 2% 168,707 2% 198,203 2% Hmong 90,082 1% 169,428 2% 186,310 2% Thai 91,275 1% 112,989 1% 150,283 1% Indonesian 29, % 39, % 63,073 1% Bangladeshi 11, % 41, % 57, % Sri Lankan 10, % 20, % 24, % Malaysian 12, % 10, % 18, % Other Asian 156,535 2% 1,235,517 12% 1,374,019 12% Total Asian Population 6,908, % 10,019, % 11,898, % 2 The analysis of Census 2000 data in this report is taken from APALC s Demographic Profile of Asian and Pacific Islanders in Southern California: Census 2000, which compiles Census 2000 data on Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States, California, and three counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. The Demographic Profile is intended to assist grant writers, program planners, advocates, legislative staff, and elected officials in better describing and understanding the growing API population and its needs. This report is available for download on APALC s website at Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

12 2000 Pacific Islander 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number % P.I. Number % P.I. Number %P.I. Native Hawaiian 211,014 58% 140,652 36% 401,162 46% Samoan 62,964 17% 91,029 23% 133,281 15% Guamanian or Chamorro 49,345 14% 58,240 15% 92,611 11% Tongan 17,606 5% 27,713 7% 36,840 4% Melanesian 7,195 2% 10,100 3% 14,156 2% Other Pacific Islander 16,900 5% 62,183 16% 222,661 25% Total Pacific Islander Population 365, % 389, % 874, % * The Demographic Profile reports racial and ethnic background for Census 2000 as two figures, Alone and Inclusive. Alone numbers represent single race responses. Inclusive (also referred to as in combination ) numbers represent single race and multiracial responses. Because the 1990 Census reported racial and ethnic background as a single figure, two measures of population growth from 1990 to 2000 are possible: one measuring growth using Alone numbers (single race responses) and another measuring growth using Inclusive numbers (single race and multiracial responses). Given these differences, growth rates for racial and ethnic groups with significant multiracial populations (e.g. Pacific Islanders, Japanese, etc.) may differ dramatically depending on which measurement is used. Among specific API communities, growth patterns vary. The API population is increasing in states with established communities and emerging in others that typically had nominal or no API presence. For example, the proportion of APIs nationally that live in California is dropping from 40% in 1990 to 35% in 2000 (although California still has the most APIs overall 3.8 to 4.4 million according to Census 2000). This indicates a greater distribution across other states. In Maine, for example, a state not historically reported as ethnically diverse, the Census 2000 numbers reported a 43% increase in APIs, mostly from an influx of Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees. The API population is growing fastest in central and southern states like Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Nebraska. Table 3: U.S. States with Highest API Percent Change from1990 to 2000 (Source: U.S. Census) U.S. States ranked from highest to lowest for percent change API Alone Population Numbers 1990 API 2000 API Alone 2000 API Inclusive Estimate Percent Change API Alone API Inclusive Estimate 1. Nevada 38,127 98, , % 238% 2. Georgia 75, , , % 176% 3. North Carolina 52, , , % 178% 4. Tennessee 31,839 58,867 73,505 85% 131% 5. Minnesota 77, , ,281 85% 116% 6. Nebraska 12,422 22,767 28,542 83% 130% 7. Delaware 9,057 16,542 19,615 83% 117% 8. Texas 319, , ,287 81% 111% 9. Arizona 55,206 98, ,087 79% 139% 10. Florida 154, , ,011 78% 131% 12 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders 2003

13 SECTION II: BRIDGING CULTURAL DIVIDES CHALLENGES IN SERVING API COMMUNITIES Nationally, legal aid programs are struggling with how to deliver services to API communities. While API communities continue to grow at record speeds, the percentage of this population served by the legal services community has never kept pace with the need. For example, according to a 1990 baseline survey of local legal aid programs in the Los Angeles area, fewer than three percent of low-income clients served were API; yet, at that time, thirteen percent of Los Angeles County s poverty-level population was API. The challenges inherent in assisting this culturally and linguistically diverse group are several and significant. Deep cultural differences, a general fear by many API communities of government agencies, and a high rate of limited English proficiency are all factors that separate API individuals from existing social or legal services. Cultural Divides that Separate API Communities from Existing Services As noted above, the API category encompasses numerous and diverse cultures and countries of origin. Each of these communities has distinct cultural patterns and practices, sometimes contrary to mainstream American cultural assumptions and expectations. For example, many non-western cultures place greater importance on families or groups over individuals; such a cultural belief may significantly impede an immigrant or refugee from seeking services for herself that would jeopardize relationships with other family members (e.g., seeking assistance with domestic violence). In addition, statistics from Census 2000 suggest that a very high proportion of APIs are foreign-born (67% overall) and recent immigrants or refugees, suggesting that they are probably not acculturated or may find acculturation a difficult process, especially if they are adults. Such recently-arrived APIs may not reach out for unfamiliar services or may not respond immediately to encouragement to do so. These deep cultural differences also present a challenge for programs attempting to design services appropriately to more than one group. system about interaction with government-funded agencies. According to programs experienced in working with newly-arrived client groups, new communities often purposely distance themselves from mainstream support networks because these services are perceived as being aligned with the government. As a result, many API communities congregate near urban and city centers 3, and rely almost entirely on formal or informal community-based programs for support, which usually are segregated from other mainstream services such as legal aid. This phenomenon keeps many of these communities isolated from existing social or legal support systems. Limited English Proficiency and High Poverty Rates The third factor that presents significant challenges to serving API communities is limited English proficiency. According to the U.S. Census, 79% of the API population in Los Angeles County speaks a language other than English at home; of this group, more than 40% speak English less than very well and 29% live in linguistically isolated households (defined as a household where no one over the age of 14 speaks English very well). Other data beyond Census 2000 also confirm the significant presence of language barriers in API communities. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District estimates that more than 30 different languages are spoken by more than 11,000 LEP students of API heritage. Table 4: Limited English Proficiency for Ethnic Groups in Los Angeles County, 2000 (Source: U.S. Census) Speak English less than very well Latino 48% Asian 43% Am. Indian 21% Pac. Islander 18% White 7% Black 3% Political Refugees and Fear of Government Agencies Many API immigrants and refugees came to the United States from countries with different and often much harsher political systems. Often suffering injustices in their home countries, these individuals lack trust in government services and/or have a different value 3 According to Census 2000, more than 95% of API communities live in proximity to a central city in metropolitan areas. Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

14 Table 5: Limited English Proficiency for API Ethnic Groups in Los Angeles County, 2000 (Source: U.S. Census) Speak English less than very well Vietnamese 63% Taiwanese 63% Korean 59% Hmong 58% Cambodian 57% Thai 54% Chinese 54% Laotian 53% Chinese excl 53% Bangladeshi 52% Indonesian 38% Malaysian 36% Tongan 33% Japanese 25% Pakistani 25% Filipino 23% Samoan 19% Sri Lankan 18% Guamanian 16% Asian Indian 15% Nat. Hawaiian 5% The significance of limited English proficiency is further underscored by the strong correlation between poverty and LEP status. Los Angeles County data from Census 2000 shows that the poorest communities in the county include several API communities, such as Cambodian (68%), Vietnamese (44%) and Lao (51%). These communities also include some of the highest proportions of LEP individuals in any ethnic or racial group; for example, Cambodians have a 57% LEP rate, Vietnamese 63% and Lao 53%. Not surprisingly, these communities also include fairly low education levels, with 56% of Cambodian, 39% of Vietnamese, and 36% of Lao having less than a high school degree. Other API groups with significantly high LEP rates include Chinese (54%) and Korean (59%). These are the populations that are most likely to need legal aid assistance, but probably the least likely to successfully access existing programs. Table 6: Poverty and Low-Income for API Ethnic Groups in Los Angeles County, 2000 (Source: U.S. Census) Below Federal Poverty Line 200% of Federal Poverty Line Hmong 51% Hmong 76% Cambodian 38% Cambodian 68% Tongan 28% Tongan 58% Samoan 26% Bangladeshi 53% Bangladeshi 25% Laotian 51% Laotian 23% Samoan 51% Pakistani 22% Vietnamese 44% Vietnamese 21% Pakistani 42% Indonesian 19% Guamanian 37% Thai 17% Korean 36% Malaysian 16% Thai 35% Korean 16% Indonesian 35% Guamanian 15% Chinese excl 33% Taiwanese 15% Chinese 32% Chinese 15% Nat. Hawaiian 31% Chinese excl 15% Taiwanese 29% Nat. Hawaiian 13% Malaysian 27% Asian Indian 12% Asian Indian 25% Japanese 9% Sri Lankan 22% Filipino 7% Filipino 20% Sri Lankan 7% Japanese 17% These factors prevent many APIs from understanding their legal rights and responsibilities, and also present significant challenges to legal aid programs trying to reach out to and serve these communities. The Gap between Traditional Legal Aid Efforts and Needs of API Communities Traditional Intake Systems Preclude API Client Access Across the nation, traditional delivery systems that handle low-income legal clients are based on two assumptions: (1) people generally know about the existence of legal services, and (2) people will (or want to) access them for assistance in resolving their matter. Legal aid programs rely on telephone intake systems and/or walk-in appointments to handle clients on a first-come, first-served basis. Because most programs cannot handle the volume of existing clients in need, outreach or marketing is usually project-specific (e.g. to notify a specific population like seniors about a recentlyfunded project that affects them), and relies on written brochures, fliers, and understaffed or sporadic general community presentations. 14 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders 2003

15 These two assumptions that predicate these traditional delivery systems do not apply to API communities, and have undermined many legal aid programs efforts to serve API clients. As discussed above, API communities are typically insulated from services outside of their communities. Like many others who are new to the culture and society of the United States, most API immigrants and refugees are unfamiliar with legal aid programs and the U.S. justice system. More importantly, API communities that are newer to the United States or are largely comprised of refugees, distrust and may refuse to access services associated with or perceived to be associated with the government. Thus, traditional intake systems that rely on the client to initiate contact with the legal aid office will remain underutilized by and thus underserve low-income API communities, especially the disproportionately poor refugee communities. Lack of Language-Appropriate Staff and Materials Impede API Access to Services Many legal service providers are focused primarily on meeting the needs of those clients who come through their doors. Because the language barrier is a significant bar to opening the door for most low-income API communities, thousands of APIs who may be in need of legal assistance may not be aware of legal aid assistance and may not even approach legal aid agencies for help. Even for API clients who overcome that roadblock and enter a legal aid agency, language barriers often prevent API individuals from fully accessing services and also limit the ability of a legal aid program to effectively serve or represent LEP APIs. Across the country, a majority of legal aid programs offer services exclusively in English. Many programs now offer some services, especially intake, in Spanish. Despite these efforts, legal aid programs are ill-equipped to provide regular and comparable services for LEP clients, especially LEP API clients, due to the diversity of API languages, the lack of availability of a competent language pool, and/or the lack of legal interpreters. bilingual individuals to serve as interpreters or staff, since the high demand for such individuals makes it more difficult to attract them to public interest or legal services work. Lack of legal interpreters: Like interpreters in the medical field, it is critical that interpreters in legal settings have an understanding of the law and legal concepts. However, members of newer API communities, including refugee communities like Cambodians, are disproportionately deprived of opportunities to pursue law degrees or legal careers. Even for API communities that now include a large number of attorneys, many may not be bilingual or their language skills may not be sufficient to engage in legal interpretation which can be very difficult. Interpreting from another language into English is one skill set, and translating complex legal matters into simplified concepts is another. Within API communities, this becomes even more important because the legal concepts that need translation are foreign not only in language, but also in concept. While some legal services programs have been able to hire receptionists and clerical staff who have proficiency in an API language, these individuals may not be able to meet the needs of API clients because they do not have training in the legal field or understanding of complex legal concepts which s/he will be asked to interpret. As a result, while individual words themselves can be translated, legal concepts and cultural differences between justice systems are more difficult to interpret and are often interpreted inaccurately. Diversity of API languages: Serving the diverse language needs of API communities is not as simple as hiring one interpreter or bilingual staff person. Because the term API encompasses 28 different languages, programs are hard-pressed to effectively staff the need. Legal services budgets cannot accommodate hiring enough bilingual advocates to serve all the language needs of increasingly diverse API communities. Lack of availability of a competent language pool: Some API communities the Cambodian community, for example are not established enough in the United States to have sufficient numbers of fully bilingual individuals who can serve as competent interpreters or bilingual staff. Additionally, some populations who have individuals with bilingual capacity also have a small population pool from which to recruit interpreters (e.g., Thai). Regardless of how established or how large a community is, most API communities do not have a sufficiently large pool of Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

16 SECTION III: A REPORT ON FINDINGS SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES FROM FORERUNNERS Programs targeting or significantly serving API clients are relatively new and as result have not been fully evaluated at the time of this report. In the next couple years, many of the projects featured here will be the first to be evaluated officially. A handful of programs, however, are leading the way in developing useful approaches that other organizations may want to employ or adapt. Of the fourteen programs interviewed (see Appendix B: Programs Interviewed), several common themes emerged that underlie the successful programs; these lessons can provide useful guidance to organizations in the process of designing or re-designing their own programs for API clients. 1. Establish Clear Vision from the Top A key factor for success is clear direction and vision at the Executive Director or leadership level of the organization. In all programs interviewed, the leadership of the organization identified the need for serving API clients and prioritized the implementation of a project that would meet API legal needs. Good leadership meant that the Executive Directors saw the API project as important and as a future part of the organization. Leadership articulated the goals of the project, backed the vision with funding, and committed staff to the project. In many cases, this vision went beyond the initiation of a new project. Approaches that affected hiring decisions, management systems, and reinvention of delivery models were considered as well. In one program, for example, API bilingual ability was considered as part of every new hire, regardless of whether or not that staff person would be working within the API project specifically. This was based on a vision that, in the long-term, the legal services program would have to consider API bilingual abilities with each new hire in order to develop and sustain capacity over time to meet the ongoing needs of API clients. Consistently, leadership in these programs defined the solution as above and beyond merely creating an API project within their organization that enabled more APIs to be represented by its attorneys. Rather, programs recognized the need to develop a well-rounded approach that included outreach with community-based organizations, partnerships with API groups or other legal services, additional training for staff, and/or alternate delivery systems to accommodate API clients who were trying to access services. Given these goals, most programs interviewed noted that a successful project could not be built by simply assigning one staff person the responsibility to represent all API clients. Either alternate staffing had to be considered (see below) or the project had to be better integrated within the larger organization. Lastly, it was critical that leadership was willing to reinvent delivery systems. Instead of offering to API communities a legal services system that had already been developed for English or Spanish speaking clients, successful approaches included a willingness to see in what legal areas API communities needed help, and to design systems responsive to those needs. For example, legal needs vary by API sub-group. Also, legal services for API clients might not fit into traditional priority areas, and time and resources must be allocated to gauge the needs of certain API sub-groups in order to create relevant services. 2. Initiate Strong Partnerships between Legal Aid and API Organizations Because the current legal system provides little to no services for LEP API communities, the resources needed to provide these services are substantial, and furthermore, too great for any one program to shoulder. Therefore, partnerships were noted as critical, not optional. Providing services to API communities involves not only representing a client, but also providing a single point of entry, developing a relationship with essential community-based groups, performing outreach and community education, providing interpretive services, and potentially developing an interpretive pool through trainings and/or advocating for improved access to the courts on behalf of API clients. Partnerships that cut across legal aid programs, API community-based organizations, and the justice community are critical to successfully implementing these services for API clients. Each program that was interviewed underscored the importance of developing strong referral networks with other legal aid programs. Coordination of outreach and accurate referrals for representation, both of which are built on these partnerships and networks, are essential to a project s success. Programs that operated outside of a general legal aid program saw the need to offer some form of language and interpreter assistance to the referred programs to ensure the client would not face further barriers at the legal aid partner program. Building relationships with service providers and community-based organizations that provided other social services was also important, since clients often needed referrals for non-legal issues. Successful programs cited their role as either a leader or catalyst in establishing active partnerships or collaboratives to share in the responsibility to serve API clients. Many API organizations targeted legal services programs, and API projects within legal aid programs targeted social service and unique partnerships with the courts to expand services. Without these partnerships to expand the services and create a broader support network for API communities, services remained unsuccessful or underused. 16 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders 2003

17 One program, for example, noted that while it could invest its resources to create and implement a program that translated materials or services in multiple languages, the program was more successful when the courts also offered services for the same API client group. Similarly, another program cited the need to mobilize its neighborhood legal aid programs around API issues, rather than wait for the legal aid programs themselves to initiate and prioritize them. This effort resulted in partnerships whereby legal aid programs receive referrals from a hotline that acts as a single point of entry for API clients. 3. Perform Active Outreach with Community-Based Organizations and Incorporate Community Education One of the most important themes that arose from all interviews was the need for outreach and relationship development with community-based organizations. Without relationships that are cultivated with API community-based organizations through in-person outreach and relationship development, a newlydeveloped API initiative will be hard-pressed to have access to API clients. The most successful way to build trust between legal service organizations and API communities is by working with API community-based organizations to reach out to API individuals. Community-based organizations act as natural hubs for many communities. In API communities, social service, volunteer and faith-based groups provide critical services and programs to as well as create a safe space for community members. Since they have established a position of trust with community members, these community-based organizations are key to conveying information, advice and resources to new immigrants and refugees. This trust can extend to legal aid organizations that build strong relationships with API community groups. Experience consistently revealed that while a program could create an API unit, hotline, or full representation program, all services remain underutilized until a concerted effort was made to develop a relationship with community-based organizations. Unlike other models of outreach, successful outreach to the API community requires face-to-face meetings to establish a trusted and personal relationship from which to build a referral network. Programs that experienced the most success in receiving active referrals consistently cited the need for regular, established on-site intakes or clinics at community-based organizations. 4. Provide Sufficient and Effective Staffing for an API Project Utilize Mixed Staffing to Effectively Meet Language Needs Ideally, LEP legal services clients would be assisted by bilingual attorneys, advocates and paralegals. However, the reality is that there are far more LEP clients and languages than there are bilingual persons able and willing to serve them; also, few legal aid programs have the resources to hire staff in all needed languages. All successful projects interviewed for this report relied on a combination of paid and volunteer bilingual persons, such as: paid staff; volunteer law students; other volunteers; pro bono attorneys; volunteer community interpreters; and/or paid professional interpreters. These staffing options were necessary to meet diverse language needs, and also to maximize resources and minimize costs. Avoid Expecting Community Groups to Provide Volunteer Interpreters One common tension between legal aid (and other mainstream) agencies and API community-based organizations is the expectation often unstated that the API group will provide interpreters on demand and without compensation. This expectation places significant burdens on API organizations, which are often small and under resourced, by drawing staff away from existing job duties and responsibilities. Successful programs have avoided this situation by providing subcontracts for interpretation, working out an exchange of in-kind services, and/or establishing a system to keep interpreter requests reasonable. Many communitybased organizations are willing and able to work with legal aid organizations to find a solution, and many will provide training and technical assistance on meeting the language needs of LEP APIs. Establish Fall-back or Transitional Approaches for Meeting Language Needs While potentially prohibitively expensive as a long-term strategy, one solution to offering immediate language services is the utilization of paid telephone interpreters, which offer a perminute rate for interpreter services in upwards of 150 languages. Some programs that were newer to serving API communities noted that without sustained resources to hire appropriate staff, a telephone interpreting service was their program s best short-term option. While perminute rates can be high, these programs noted this was an adequate and temporary solution to provide services in needed languages when hiring was not an option. Additionally, programs more experienced in providing services to API communities commonly relied on telephone interpreters as a back-up plan, e.g., offering finite minutes of this service to staff to supplement existing staff language capacities. Dedicate Staff or Teams to API Issues Exclusively Whether the program operated within a legal aid organization or was a stand-alone organization acting as a single point of entry and referral for API clients, all programs underscored the importance of dedicating bilingual staff to any successful API effort. A staff person expected to handle the needs of diverse API communities in addition to other cases, priorities, or projects will be unable to devote the time needed to effectively implement and sustain services to API clients. Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

18 As mentioned above, a successful and comprehensive API project involves much more than simply representing a client in a legal matter. It also involves relationship building with community-based organizations, individualized education to community members, working with a potentially large group of volunteers and staff, among other responsibilities. To effectively establish legal services for API clients, especially those who are LEP, it is important that staff assigned to such a project be relieved of competing priorities. 5. Provide a Single Point of Entry for API Clients One key to successfully serving API clients is the creation of a single point of entry for API clients, such as a dedicated telephone number for all API clients or, even better, dedicated numbers for each API language served. Experience from programs that employed this strategy indicated that without this option of having a dedicated telephone number staffed with bilingual advocates or providing a recorded message in API languages, many API clients would hang up before they were helped. Furthermore, community-based organizations would be reluctant to refer their clients for services to organizations without a single point of entry for API clients because invariably the client could not get through or would get frustrated by the difficulty of reaching someone who understood them. To address this issue, some legal aid programs have set up dedicated telephone numbers focused on specific communities (e.g., a Korean hotline or dedicated number for the Korean community). The key to the success of these lines is that they are answered by a live person who performs an intake (such as a staff person, law student, or other volunteer). Alternately, the client listens to a recorded message in their language, leaves a voic message, and is called back by a bilingual staff person or volunteer. A single point of entry in the native language of the clients also helps establish trust and mitigate cultural divides. One legal aid organization in Southern California, for example, offers a self-help center at courthouses, which is staffed by a bilingual Mandarin-speaking advocate. This advocate can provide LEP Mandarin-speaking users of the court with counseling and limited assistance in their legal matter. Another Southern California legal aid organization staffs a courthouse clinic with a Koreanspeaking attorney, who helps victims of domestic violence complete restraining orders on-site. 7. Utilize Technology Solutions Effectively 4 Many programs take advantage of technology to help coordinate, deliver, or create new approaches to meeting the needs of API communities. An internal website (i.e., an intranet ) that refers staff to translated materials, bilingual resources, API cultural issues and other services available is one example of how technology can be harnessed to more effectively serve API clients, especially by staff who typically do not handle API clients. Other technology innovations include courthouse kiosks that help LEP clients complete court pleadings and websites that provide translated self-help material. As noted by the programs interviewed, these technology applications like the pro se and self-help options are not meant to singlehandedly meet the legal needs of API communities, but are most effective when integrated with adequate staffing, strong partnerships and clear commitment to serving the community. 6. Expand Pro Se and Self-Help Services to Complement Other Services for API Clients Services for pro se (unrepresented) clients are important because despite all efforts, limited resources dictate that the needs of low-income API communities cannot be wholly met through a staffed or volunteer-driven program. For English-speaking legal services clients, pro se and self-help options are increasingly being provided to help larger numbers of clients navigate the legal system. These options must also be provided for API clients, so that if there is no available advocate, they can still proceed unrepresented. However, such self-help services should not replace direct assistance and representation, as no successful program is based on a purely self-help model. 4 This report does not discuss in-depth programs that have significantly explored technology solutions. The Appendices outline some options that are being explored across the field, and provides a resource page with additional information about these projects. 18 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders 2003

19 SECTION IV: ONGOING CHALLENGES IN SERVING API CLIENTS In addition to common strengths, there are also issues or challenges identified across all programs that affected design, implementation and delivery of services to API communities. 1. Meeting Staffing and Management Challenges Unavailability of Persons with Relevant Expertise and Linguistic Ability Staffing remains one of the biggest challenges for all programs, as funding for salaries fluctuates or is hard to sustain. Even when sufficient funds were available to hire bilingual staff in the targeted languages, programs faced a hard reality: Bilingual persons with legal skills and/or experience are rare or non-existent in some languages (e.g., Cambodian), and even in languages with many trained attorneys and paralegals (e.g., Chinese), competition from the (betterpaying) private sector for fluent bilingual speakers means a relatively scarce pool of potential staff and volunteers. To the extent a more experienced individual was required, e.g., to start up and manage a new API Project, the pool of possibilities shrinks even further. Difficulty Integrating API Priorities into Every Hiring Decision Senior management of several interviewed programs noted that one large challenge was how to integrate the need for API staffing into every hiring opportunity. If an organization commits to serving API communities, then all hiring decisions throughout the entire organization should consider the candidate s bilingual ability as well as their legal experience. If successfully adopted, this strategy can lead over time, as shown by some of the interviewed programs, to a more integrated approach to delivering services to LEP API communities, with API speaking staff spread throughout an organization. This strategy, however, remains difficult to implement because of divergent opinions about which API languages or communities to prioritize and the unfortunately competing demands for limited resources (e.g., other language communities, new equipment, etc.). Long-Term Sustainability of API-Specific Projects While some legal aid programs have found it useful to create a separate API unit to serve API clients, these units presented clear management challenges. In contrast to traditional legal aid programs where attorneys and other legal staff usually base their professional development on the depth of their expertise in a particular legal issue (e.g., housing), attorneys in API-specific projects are often required to be generalists. These attorneys, unlike their monolingual English-speaking counterparts, must cater to the broad range of problems in API communities, especially if they are fluent in an API language. Managers of API-specific projects continue to wrestle with the balancing the professional development of their staff with the conflicting need to have API staff serve the needs of the API clients. Several programs noted that expectations should be clarified for both bilingual and monolingual English-speaking staff, especially the availability of interpreters for staff use and the role of bilingual attorneys and other staff in providing interpretation. Other expectations regarding control over cases, ability to develop expertise in one area, etc. should also be clarified for bilingual attorneys. Additional Supervision and Time Required for Unpaid or Alternate Staffing Patterns Unpaid or alternate staffing patterns, such as those using volunteer or paid law students, come with their own set of challenges. Law and other students may not be able to prioritize the API project over school commitments. Volunteers also often stay for only limited periods of time. The projects that use students indicated a need to budget significant time for constant recruitment; coping with exams or other schedule conflicts; developing an effective system of training students on a continual basis; and ensuring proper supervision. 2. Lack of Funding Across all projects, funding remains the biggest challenge. While start-up funding can be found for discrete projects or goals, successful programs have had to devote operational funds to these initiatives in order to sustain them. In order to sustain API-specific projects in the long-term, several programs profiled in this report are considering developing and implementing a fee-forservice project, where interpretation is provided for a reasonable fee. One program, however, noted that relationships with community-based organizations can lead to funding opportunities (e.g., in one Chinese community, Chinese professionals collected funds that were made available to the legal aid program to fund their API-specific effort. 3. Need for Referral Networks Referral networks are necessary to promote full services to API clients, since many projects can only successfully tackle one community or set of issues. For example, a multilingual stand-alone hotline cited a need for a network of experienced legal aid programs and attorneys to receive referrals and represent screened clients. Similarly, even within a traditional legal aid program, an API unit that is often under-staffed needs to be able to refer its cases within other units of the program and sometimes outside the organization for assistance and representation. While every program has developed these networks, successful referrals remain a challenge for most programs interviewed. Oftentimes, unless an API community-based organization or unit offers assistance with interpretation, their client will be rejected for extended representation due to the language barrier. Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders

20 Additionally, programs that coordinate with other legal aid programs often find it challenging to successfully refer many cases to partner legal aid programs, due to limited staff assigned to the project or other competing priorities. 4. Establishing Quality Control for Bilingual Staff and Interpreters Increasingly, mistakes in interpreting and incidents where client rights are compromised are spurring calls for quality control in interpreting. To maintain quality control over bilingual staff and volunteers, it is imperative that legal aid organizations train all persons who will directly communicate with LEP clients. Ideally, training should include the specifics of legal interpretation, interpreter ethics, and interpreter protocols. Additionally, there should be standards regarding who is eligible to act as an interpreter, in order to avoid conflict of interest issues. For instance, using staff from communitybased organizations, former clients, or family members as interpreters often presents ethical issues (e.g., disclosure of personal information to other members of a small community) and potential conflicts of interest in certain legal matters (e.g., family members who are opposing parties). These issues remain challenges for most programs. Limited resources often force efforts to implement such quality control measures onto the backburner. Additionally, in areas where interpreters are limited, programs are less likely to invoke standards of interpreting that might further reduce the pool available to assist a client. In addition to training, most legal aid organizations have very informal methods of assessing language ability without formal evaluation of skills and knowledge, legal aid organizations run the great risk of hiring staff or relying on volunteers whose language skills are not sufficient for their duties. 5. Effectively Responding to Ongoing Demographic Changes While the programs profiled in this report are located in Los Angeles, Boston, and Washington, D.C. all urban centers that have a history of API communities other programs interviewed represent states or areas that have traditionally served only English-speaking clients and have only in the last several years experienced the explosive growth of API and other LEP populations. These recent demographic changes represent a unique series of challenges. Two issues were noted by programs under this rubric: (1) programs located in demographically and linguistically diverse neighborhoods that had a history of providing services to API or LEP clients continue to struggle with how to create systems for and respond to a dynamic community with new populations arriving; and (2) programs located in traditionally English-speaking neighborhoods or in rural areas without much exposure to LEP communities were experiencing a high influx of API and other LEP clients but without resources or programs to help meet the need. A challenge faced by both types of programs was: how to prioritize languages, and once certain languages are offered, how to serve new communities that may arrive over time? Although no universal consensus exists, existing solutions are helpful to examine. Pine Tree Legal Assistance (PTLA) in Maine has witnessed a record influx of immigrant populations. The state s Department of Education reports that more than 72 languages are now spoken in Maine. Spanish is no longer the clear second language behind English, but instead competes with seven other languages. Because each population ranges between persons, this situation has challenged PTLA to design services for several language groups simultaneously in a place with no history of existing services for LEP communities. A short-term response used by PTLA focused on translating client materials and brochures into the appropriate languages, and using a telephone interpreting service to interpret for LEP clients. PTLA noted that while it could invest in more effective services over time, assuming more funding could be secured, however, a larger challenge remained: PTLA is only one piece of the justice system in Maine. The courts in communities like this are also overwhelmed by the demand and are unable to process claims or clients who do not speak English or Spanish. The challenge represented by PTLA indicates a strong need for programs to work with other partners in the legal system to ensure client needs are not compromised due to language and cultural barriers. 6. Expanding Beyond Pro Se and Self-Help Services While also mentioned as a strength because of the ability to serve a greater number of clients, programs that simply provide counsel and advice or limited services cannot adequately meet the needs of low-income API communities. As more and more API clients come into contact with the legal system, the weaknesses of the system as it affects LEP persons become more evident. Many programs cited that technology and pro se services will be un- or under-utilized if they are not integrated into a fuller approach to deliver services to API communities (e.g. including staff to provide representation). Additionally, programs pursuing pro se initiatives and self help services should also engage in courthouse advocacy that encourages the courts to accommodate the API client base equally. For example, court interpreters are frequently not available in API languages. Therefore, even if a pro se initiative can empower a client to complete necessary forms, this client may still be denied justice because they will neither understand nor be understood in the courthouse at her hearing. 20 Expanding Legal Services: Serving Limited English Proficient Asians and Pacific Islanders 2003